Skip to main content

Assessment guidelines - Artists Investment Program - Development

These guidelines are designed to:

  • help applicants understand the sorts of things assessors may consider when assessing applications
  • serve as prompts for assessors to consider in assessing submissions against the criteria of quality and reach.

The prompts are provided only as examples of the things that assessors may consider. Applicants are not required to address all the prompts one by one in their submissions, but if they are relevant, consider how they are reflected in their applications.

It is very important to note that not all of the prompts will apply to each application and the prompts may vary slightly or be weighted differently between the different programs.

Stage one

Criteria Indicator Peers may consider
Quality 100% Quality of artistic concept and artistic practice
  • How strong is the artistic concept?
  • Is the proposed project clear – what is it, who is involved, when and where?
  • How strong is the artistic practice?
  • What is the quality of work previously produced? How is the artist recognised by their peers in the artform/sector?

Creativity – imagination, originality
  • How interesting/exciting/inventive is the proposal?
  • Does the proposal demonstrate creative thinking that suggests strong artistic potential?

Progression – fresh artistic approaches, experimentation and creative challenge
  • How does this proposal develop the artist's artform/sector?
  • How does it develop the artist's own creative practice?
  • How does this proposal demonstrate artistic progression?
  • Is there evidence of artistic or creative challenge/risk that shows potential for further development?

Currency – timeliness in career, relevance to career development, potential for growth in practice
  • What is the context of the project in the artist's career?
  • Why this, why now, why this project?
  • How is it relevant to the development of the artist's career and/or artform and professional practice?

Stage two

Criteria Indicator The panel may consider
Quality 90%

Application stage: as above, plus additional indicator under quality:

Capacity – calibre of personnel, resource and financial management, planning

  • How viable is the project/program? Is there a project plan?
  • Are the timelines, planning, use of resources realistic and achievable planning? Has sufficient evidence of this been provided?
  • Are other investors confirmed?
  • Is the budget realistic and accurate?
  • What is the calibre of the people involved? Why has the applicant chosen to work with them? What do they contribute to the project?
Reach 10% What are the outcomes of the project?
  • Does the project result in specific outcomes, e.g. professional development, audience/industry development, profile development?
  • What is the impact of these outcomes?

Potential – how does the development proposal build new opportunities for the artist's career?
  • Will the project enable the artist to discover or develop new audiences or new markets? How successfully does it demonstrate this?
  • Will the project enable the artist to meet or increase market demand for the work? How successfully does it demonstrate this?

Engagement – participation, access, involvement
  • Does the proposal engage with other communities of interest and/or communities of practice, e.g. other artists, collaborations, organisations? How well does it do this?